Hacker News Reader

You have to rely on your decades-long confirmation bias.

I doubt the author (or anyone) goes back to their interview notes a year after hiring the candidate to see how much they got right.

View on HN

It's also hard to do unless you're hiring for several similar positions at the same time.

If you hired only one guy, who's to say that the others you rejected would have performed better or worse?

If you hired 3 for similar positions, you can start making guesses from interview performances and (in)validating them one year after. But as you said I don't think it's done in practice anyway.

It's too bad, because I think it's necessary to go back and check how your predictions were. tptacek had a good process that was consistent, quantified and checked afterwards, but the average interview process (mine included) is just random stuff that ultimately feed into my bias.

I once hired two engineers for the same role on my team; they both seemed about the same level during the interview. After working with them for a while, one of them was perfectly adequate, the other turned out to be the best engineer I've ever worked with.

Did that help you reframe your hiring strategy for the future? Curious what qualities in the second engineer both made them better and could have been revealed in an interview.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com